McCain In Iraq

In the interest of security, as with other U.S. politicians, when John McCain goes to Iraq his visits are not pre-announced, he flies into secret locations, and is provided with extensive security and air cover. He is concerned about Iran's rising influence, and its training of al-Qaeda insurgents.

In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.

Compare and contrast: When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits Iraq, he announces his visit weeks in advance. More specifically,

He announced the dates of his visit in advance, landed at Baghdad International Airport in daylight and drove through the capital, albeit in a heavily guarded convoy, on a relatively quiet day. Iraqi forces provided security.

That business about Iran's rising influence? It's not so much "in the future".

McCain's Religious Ties? Oh... "That's Different"

Tapped takes a brief look at the religious extremists currently enjoying the warm embrace of John McCain, and the historic lack of calls for candidates to distance themselves from the controversial statements of the religious leaders who support them.

Bush Speechwriters United....

... Against Obama.

Michael Gerson attempts to attack Barack Obama's record on the Iraq war, but first a blatantly false assertion about McCain:

John McCain's nomination was ensured by the success of the surge he had consistently advocated, against intense opposition.

Daniel Larison responds:

This is ludicrous. McCain was the frontrunner in the spring of 2007, long before anyone could have reasonably claimed that the “surge” had done anything (not that many pundits didn’t make outlandish claims), and there was in any case never any doubt in the Republican rank-and-file that the “surge” was the right thing to do. On the contrary, if McCain’s nomination was ever assured it was assured by the collapse of his only real national rival, Mitt Romney, under the waves of the Huckaboom, whose beginning had literally nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

Gerson attempts to depict Obama as inconsistent on Iraq, lifting his analysis out of an essay by fellow Bush Speechwriter Peter Wehner. The phases appear to be:

1. The 2002 speech, opposing the Iraq war;
2. A post-war period, from 2003 to 2006, in which he argued that it would be irresponsible to withdraw, and that we had an obligation to try to stabilize Iraq;
3. Starting in late 2006, argument for phased withdrawal, and skepticism about "the surge";
4. An apparent present mindset that his Iraq policy as President will be shaped by the facts on the ground.

Gerson, of course, is all for the idea that Obama should base his opinions on the realities of the situation in Iraq, not campaign promises. But this obviously undercuts his suggestion of inconsistency between pre-war opposition to invasion, and post-war support for an effort to make the invasion and occupation work. Did Gerson somehow miss that the facts on the ground changed considerably between the time Obama opposed a theoretical war, and the time he was hoping to get the best outcome out of an actual war? Of course not. Gerson's attacks on Obama are consistently short on honesty.

Not only is there no inconsistency between points one and two, Obama remains correct to have opposed the war, and once Bush started the war he was correct to press for the best outcome. Had his position during the post-war period been a demand for immediate withdrawal at any cost, it would have been ridiculous. And this, of course, further highlights Gerson's mendacity - Gerson would be savaging that stance, as well. (The difference being, had Obama taken such a ridiculous position, Gerson could have presented an honest impeachment.)

So now the "inconsistency" is reduced to skepticism of "the surge", and the suggestion that the time has come for the Iraqi government to shoulder the burden of running the country. Or, if you believe that the Iraqi government will remain incapable of assuming actual governance and responsibility for security in the next twelve to thirty months, that the time has come for us to cut our losses. With all due respect to Gerson, if he truly believed that "the surge" was working he wouldn't be trying to disown the Bush Administration's benchmarks of its success, or exaggerating its successes.

It is a perfectly legitimate reaction to the present situation to observe that it is not apparent that Iraqi factions will even try to resolve their differences as long as the occupation remains in force, and to ask, "Why shouldn't we cut our losses?" The easy thing to do is what Gerson and his ilk have done from day one - prop up the official Bush Administration line that up is down, left is right, and the best way to overcome past failures is to keep on doing exactly the same thing.

Oh, you say, but "the surge" was something different. Even accepting that argument, that the failures of the prior years of strategy had become so patent that there were some real changes in our approach to the occupation on the ground, the surge has failed by the Bush Administration's benchmarks, and apparently also in the assessment of General Petaeus. And here's where the circle closes - the brilliant strategy of the man Gerson wants to push into the White House? "We'll keep doing exactly the same thing, whether for a hundred years or even a thousand years." That, Gerson would have us believe, is the better Iraq war policy.

I know I tease Gerson here, by suggesting that he is a world-class idiot, but there's another possibility. He's capitalizing on his position with the Washington Post to inject Republican smears into mainstream discourse. If they don't stick, those feeding him the lines he is to pitch can shrug and say, "It's only Gerson." And if the smears stick, more credible right-wingers can run with them.

Running Against McCain

E.J. Dionne suggests,

So what's the path of integrity for one-time McCain fans in the center and on the left? It would be to base our judgments on the extent to which the rebellious McCain we admired has given way to the McCain who is as conservative as he always said he was - even if many liberals (and, for different reasons, many conservatives) didn't want to believe him.

Is there a need for a special "path of integrity"? I don't think that a Democrat who would have preferred McCain to Bush in 2000, or again in 2004, to note, "I thought he would be better than G.W. Bush, but that doesn't mean I think he's better than anybody." Or to observe, "He has done some good things, and to me that puts him head and shoulders above the other Republicans who he defeated in the primaries, but I now have to compare him to the Democratic nominee."

What gives me the most pause about McCain? His retreat from his own historic positions without regard for whether he is followng a "path of integrity". The positions where I found him historically most impressive, such as fiscal conservativism, willingness to stand up to intolerance? When he decided to run for President again, they were the first to go. Where he is the most consistent as a "conservative", it seems, is when he advocates against abortion rights or flag burning. To the extent that it is even fair to call it "conservative," that platform doesn't inspire me.

Meanwhile, Richard Cohen is telling us that McCain could win based on the one issue where he has been consistent - to maintain the Iraq War as a war without end.

John McCain lacks Nixon's raw talent for hypocrisy, so I don't think he'll go that far. But he will make his stand on the surge, and it will be, for him, the functional equivalent of Nixon's secret plan. His plan, McCain will say, is to win. The Democrats' is to surrender, he will say. The issue, if he frames it right, will not be the wisdom of the war but how to get out with pride.

But that's not what's going to happen, is it? The Democrats will be asking, "How do we get out with pride, while maintaining stability in the region," and McCain will be arguing, "Get out? Why would we ever want to do that?"

McCain, of course, owns the surge. He advocated putting additional troops in Iraq way back when President Bush, deep in denial, was proclaiming ultimate faith in Rummy and his merry band of incompetents.

McCain only "owns" the surge because the mainstream media lets him. Why doesn't he own the entire war? ("Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war.") Why doesn't he "own" the catastrophically bad plan that he endorsed, up to the date it should have been obvious to a sack of hammers that more troops were needed? McCain argued,

Many critics suggest that disarming Iraq through regime change would not result in an improved peace. There are risks in this endeavor, to be sure. But no one can plausibly argue that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein will not significantly improve the stability of the region and the security of American interests and values.

That argument was being plausibly made at the time. It proved correct. But Mr. "Straight Talk" - Mr. "National Security" - wasn't listening. And McCain's enduring embrace of Chalabi is evocative of Bush's deep stare into Putin's eyes - how wrong can you be?

So when Cohen gushes, "McCain, in fact, oozes national security", the question is legitimately raised, why are so many in the mainstream media unwilling to point out that, on the whole, McCain's judgment on the war has been terrible? (And what else is there?)

McCain Probably Would Prefer Obama, But....

Stanley Fish analyzes the presidential race and concludes, "I would bet that if McCain were pulling a lever in the Democratic primaries in Texas and Ohio, his vote would go into the Obama column." I think he's correct. But I think he oversells the reasons why that's the case and, in analyzing McCain's advantages over Obama, overlooks some key aspects of how they both came from the rear to their frontrunner positions. He speculates that McCain's position(s) on the war will transform it into a "Republican plus."

The reason is that McCain’s position on the war, as on so many other issues, looks in (at least) two directions.

On the one hand, he voted to authorize the invasion. On the other, he consistently disagreed with the administration’s prosecution of the war in general and with the judgment of defense Secretary Rumsfeld in particular. And on the third hand, he advocated for a course of action that was at last implemented in the so-called “surge,” and with some success.

I'm not sure why that argument would apply to Obama and not Clinton, but let's take it at face value. Survey after survey shows that, whatever fruits the surge may have produced, the American public wants out of Iraq. There is no sign that we're going to further escalate "the surge", and at this point we seem to have reached something of a plateau. It is not apparent that we can withdraw "surged" troops without backsliding. There is a very real concern that our commitments in Iraq are degrading our military, and there is plenty of evidence (such as the relaxation of restrictions on recruitment of people with medical ailments and criminal records) that suggests this to be the case.

But perhaps all of that is too nuanced for an election campaign? Fish imagines,

McCain can ask, Don’t you see that the situation has changed in recent months, and shouldn’t a responsible leader adjust his or her stance according to the facts on the ground?

The obvious response to this is that (a) things changed after the surge, but have not changed in recent months, and there is very little sign that Iraq is headed toward a form of stability that can be maintained without the continued presence of 100,000+ U.S. troops, and that the McCain "We could be there for 100 years" policy is a post-surge policy. As I see it, McCain does not benefit by introducing an argument that only highlights that "improvement" at best means "we're no longer losing ground", but that he has no strategy for either winning or cutting our losses. His hyperbolic overstatements that helped lead us into the war won't help him - contrast an early clip of him raving about how easy and cheap the war will be with his more recent "100 years, maybe forever" commitment to the war, and you have a powerful anti-McCain campaign ad.

And he can add, I too had my doubts about the conduct of the war, but now a policy I long advocated has been put in place with good results.

And that can be contrasted with all of the promises, "Things will be better in a few months; we'll know by the fall; we'll know in six months...."-type statements by pretty much every supporter of the surge. How does McCain respond to, "Your strategy bore some initial fruit, but we've not seen any substantial improvement for more than a year - what's your next move?" We already know his answer - I don't think it makes him electable.

The parts of McCain’s story, even with one or two twists and turns, fit nicely into a coherent narrative that brings credit to him in every chapter. I was resolute in the beginning, I demurred for a while but for good reasons, and now I am resolute again, and you can trust me because, in this area especially, I know what I’m doing. He can rehearse this narrative without apologizing for anything and then turn around to Obama and (borrowing from Clinton’s attacks on him), declare: You, on the other hand, don’t know what you’re doing, as everything you say, not only about the war, but about the conduct of foreign policy, proves. (He and President Bush are already pushing this line in anticipation of Obama’s nomination.)

And Obama can respond, "Being resolute in one failed policy or another is neither a sign of experience nor good judgment." (Perhaps Obama's ad can mention how McCain embraces one failed Bush policy after another. The Bush-McCain plot has already run off-course with the Bush Administration adopting what had to that point been depicted by McCain (and Clinton) as one of Obama's naive, silly ideas.

Fish goes on to surmise that on the issues, McCain is too much like a Democrat to inspire voters to vote for Obama instead of him.

The criticisms of McCain made by his primary opponents – he twice voted against Bush’s tax cuts, he cooperated with Ted Kennedy on immigration reform and with Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform, he said that waterboarding was torture and should not be used, he scorned fundamentalist Christian leaders, he supported stem cell research, he opposed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, he expressed doubts about Samuel Alito – cannot be appropriated by Obama because these are his positions, too.

Ah yes, the various issues which cause some right-wingers to become apoplectic and call McCain a "liberal." I've already mentioned how common ground can be used to positively camaign against McCain. Ads in the states most concerned about border security describing how President Obama will be able to work with Republican leaders, such as John McCain, to break through the gridlock on immigration reform. And 527's can have even more fun, running ads about how McCain will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire so we can get back to balancing the budget - something that will likely inspire fierce denials from John "I was against tax cuts and budget deficits before I was for them" McCain.

And if you want to go negative, whatever McCain's history of distancing himself from "agents of intolerance", he's currently doing his best to embrace as many as he can reach. One set of ads can work to undermine him as a hypocrite who actually opposes religion, and wants the government to pay for stem cell research and recognize same-sex marriage; another can depict him as a hypocrite who will abandon any sense of principle or ethics to embrace hateful religious leaders, as long as it brings him votes. Without too much difficulty, he can also be forced to take a clear position on abortion rights - he's against them, but many people don't seem to realize that.

I suspect that the Bush Administration will coax the Iraqis into trying to demonstrate "progress" by passing legislation or taking other nominal steps that do not actually do a thing to improve the situation on the ground; Obama will have to deal with that type of "progress". But I also suspect that absent real progress in Iraq, McCain has nothing to offer on that issue and his commitment to indefinite war will weigh down his campaign. Whether or not Obama manages to maintain the same level of enthusiasm behind his campaign, I don't sense that there is much (if any) enthusiasm behind McCain. Am I missing something? Pretty much everything McCain could historically offer to the political center is either undermined by his more recent flip-flopping or by its alienating him from voters on the political right.

One thing that is clear from the campaign to date is that many people (myself included) underestimated Obama as a political candidate. One of the things that has impressed me about Obama is how fast he is to respond to even modest attacks, and find ways to defuse them. McCain has made himself very vulnerable to counterattack.

Let's Not Overrate Bipartisanship

David Ignatius is much more comfortable with McCain's record on "biparisanship" than with Obama's:

The Obama campaign sent me an eight-page summary of his "bipartisan accomplishments," and it includes some encouraging examples of working across the aisle on issues such as nuclear proliferation, energy, veterans affairs, budget earmarks and ethics reforms. So the cupboard isn't bare. It's just that, unlike McCain, Obama bears no obvious political scars for fighting bipartisan battles that were unpopular with his party's base.

A couple of reactions....

Bipartisanship is a great concept when your party doesn't control the government. "They may have the power and control, but wouldn't it be better if they tossed us a bone from time to time?" It's necessary when no party is in control, as otherwise you can have gridlock. But if you do have control, what's your incentive for tossing the other side that bone? The vain hope that in the future, when they regain control, they'll return the favor? (What does the Republican legislative history from 2001 - 2006 tell us about that hope?)

Also, I don't believe for a second that McCain plans to run a bipartisan government, except as necessary to advance his agenda. He may be more willing to break with the Republican Party than his recent predecessors, just as they will be more likely to break with him, but that's not about "bipartisanship" - that's about their each advancing their own agendas. The spittle directed at McCain by right-wing nutters like Limbaugh and Coulter is a reflection of that reality - the problem is not that McCain is a "liberal" as some pretend, or that he belives in "bipartisanship". It's that he'll build coalitions to do what he wants.

It doesn't worry me that Obama doesn't have a long history of reaching across the aisle. He hasn't been in national office long enough to have a long history of anything, and for the first six years of the Bush Administration "reaching across the aisle" has largely meant getting a sufficient number of Democrats to acquiesce to an item on the Republican agenda. It would worry me more if he had the opportunity to advance significant legislation without compromise, but nonetheless decided to gut it in the name of "bipartisanship". (But I don't think he'll do that.)

Ronald Reagan taught the country something about the ability of a world-class communicator to create such a new political space that defies the previous categories.

I thought we were talking about bipartisanship, so why does Ignatius evoke Reagan? At present, to be transformative, McCain would have to do a lot of reaching across the aisle. Obama, not so much.

The Words Put Into Politician's Mouths

Michael Gerson tells us,

The construction of serious speeches forces candidates (or presidents) to grapple with their own beliefs, even when they don't write every word themselves. If those convictions cannot be marshaled in the orderly battalions of formal rhetoric, they are probably incoherent.

Michael Gerson? Speechwriter for G.W. Bush? Did it even occur to him that he's indicting his own work?

McCain can and should make an ideological case against his opponent. Why does Obama want to fight terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan but not in Iraq? How would it advance the war on terrorism to grant al-Qaeda's fondest wish - an untimely American retreat from the Middle East? Would Obama really devote his first year in office to a series of surrender summits with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea?

Here's the problem. If you caricature and misrepresent your opponent's beliefs, you don't come across as a "straight talker". McCain has already stumbled when trying to confront Obama on foreign policy, ridiculing Obama's statements about striking targets inside Pakistan even as the White House was adopting the very techniques Obama proposed.

Trying to caricature Obama as intending to meet with every world leader, no matter how despotic, during his first year in office? At the expense of every single other priority, domestic or international? Let's just say that if I were drafting Obama's response to such an accusation the overt message would be "he's confused", and the subtext would be "he's senile." Obama's team may be more charitable than I, but I would suggest that McCain take a look at G.W.'s past, frequent incoherence before adopting a response endorsed by one of Bush's principal speechwriters.

Trying To Outsmart A Sicilian

The New York Times brings us this from a long-term McCain supporter:

The nobler side of me admires him, even across party lines, for the tremendous interest and enthusiasm he has engendered among younger Americans. But the larger, less decent part of me believes that Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable general election opponent for the Republican nominee. She’s certainly on the ropes right now: her campaign has been flailing through the last few rounds of primaries in a way that Clintons are usually able to avoid. But we’ve been losing to Clintons for a long time now: I’d still just as soon avoid her in a general election campaign.

Ever see The Princess Bride?

All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Whatever you make of this supposed fear of Clinton, this is also worth noting:

As an equally loyal fan of the Republican Party and of the Green Bay Packers football team, I had come to regard the Clintons the same way I’ve always thought about the Dallas Cowboys. I don’t like them. I root against them. I want them to lose and occasionally find myself wanting bad things to happen to them.

This of course is one of the leading problems with partisan politics. Sometimes the other team has the better players and better strategy, and its victory would be much better for everyone, but you still back "your" team because its "yours".

George Will Blasts John McCain

To put it mildly, George Will does not appear to like John McCain. A taste:

Although his campaign is run by lobbyists; and although his dealings with lobbyists have generated what he, when judging the behavior of others, calls corrupt appearances; and although he has profited from his manipulation of the taxpayer-funding system that is celebrated by reformers - still, he probably is innocent of insincerity. Such is his towering moral vanity, he seems sincerely to consider it theoretically impossible for him to commit the offenses of appearances that he incessantly ascribes to others.

I suspect, though, that come November McCain will still get Will's vote.

This, I suppose, is the type of column which leads some readers who disagree with Will's politics to respect him for his willingness to speak against the interests of the Republican Party. I'm not sold on the idea that Will is a straight-talking maverick... or is that McCain? Well, either way. But it's hard to dispute that this editorial could hurt the prospects of the now-inevitable Republican nominee, and potentially invigorates some tough questions that McCain has so far been able to avoid.

"How Dare McCain Hold Me Accountable For My Own Words!"

Another right-wing ranter is (supposedly) going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Cunningham does so much to redeem himself....

In his first public comment since Tuesday's event, Cunningham defended his use of Hussein, which he called "a proud Muslim name."

"I have nothing but respect for my Muslim brothers and sisters," he said. "The ones who oppose that particular name, they're the ones with the problem, not me. His name is Barack Hussein Obama."

Right....

So Let Me See If I Understand McCain's Approach to Obama....

McCain has unveiled an early strategy against Obama:

"I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change."

If I understand this correctly, the young African American man who promises dramatic changes in domestic economic policy, health care coverage, and the Iraq war is the candidate of the status quo. Whereas a geriatric white Republican named John "I promise to continue every one of G.W. Bush's failed policies" McCain wants to make sure we're not "deceived" by his rhetoric.

Gee.... Thanks, John.

Taking Public Money

The Washington Post attacks Barack Obama for retreating (through a spokesman) from a pledge to forego private funding for the general election if his opponent did the same. Don't the anonymous editors who wrote the column read their own paper? They don't need to be quoting spokespersons:

Obama said in Milwaukee: "If I am the nominee, then I will make sure that our people talk to John McCain's people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations in respect to the general election." But, he added, "it would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it, and I'm not the nominee."

Obama denies that his inquiry constituted a pledge.

Last year, Mr. Obama sought an advisory ruling with the Federal Election Commission to see whether the campaign could opt out of public financing in the primary and accept it in the general election. It was merely an inquiry, he said, not a pledge to accept the financing.

Why all this negativity toward Obama, with an added dig at Hillary Clinton, but the kid gloves treatment of John McCain?

But this kind of backtracking and parsing isn't what the millions of voters who have been inspired by Mr. Obama are looking for. It's not befitting Mr. Obama's well-earned image as a champion of reform. Instead of waffling, Mr. Obama should be pushing Ms. Clinton to go beyond her spokesman's statements that she would "definitely consider" forgoing public financing.

Why not a word of criticism for John McCain, whose flip-flopping and manipulations on the issue of public financing are a matter of record?

McCain's present statements suggest that he 'll go back to his original commitment to use federal funds, but only if Obama makes that commitment first. The difference being, McCain actually signed on the dotted line to receive federal funds. Why is Mr. Straight-Talk excused from his abrogation of his signed and delivered application for federal funds, while Obama is excoriated for a non-binding commitment made in response to a questionnaire?

-------
Addendum: I found the candidate's statements to the Midwest Democracy Network.

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

While Obama makes a strong commitment to public financing in elections, the Post elides the reference to John McCain and Obama's understanding of McCain's pledge. (A fair understanding, given that McCain actually applied for public funds.)

I wouldn't mind seeing Obama stay true to his beliefs, but let's not pretend that John "McCain-Feingold" is holding to his own commitments. If he weren't playing the "Despite what I said before, I'm not going to stick with my word unless Obama makes a binding commitment to use public financing" game, I would be much less forgiving of Obama. But he's doing just that.

Is This The Beginning Of A New Beginning For McCain?

Today, Michael Gerson lavishes attention on John McCain, and repeats his standard prevarication about "the surge", followed by a "there are two types of people" generalization that would probably even make David Brooks blush.

President Bush's announcement of the surge in January 2007 pleased almost no one - neither Democrats who embraced retreat at any cost, nor Republicans who suspected the shift in approach was too little, too late.

Is Gerson truly a simpleton, or does he merely play one on the editorial pages? Seriously - people complain about The Times hiring Kristol, who is unquestionably a hack, but at least he has a brain in his head.

Gerson tries to reinvent McCain's revival as being about this new "success" in the Iraq war:

Yet the Republican candidate most closely identified with the war and the surge performs well in head-to-head polls against the Democrats. The revival of McCain's campaign was possible for one reason: the revival of American fortunes in Iraq.

Which explains why Republican voters put the Iraq war first... second... er, make that a close third (19%) on their list of priorities. Behind the economy (39%), something McCain admits that he doesn't understand, and immigration (23%).... Gerson may have sympathies with McCain's views on immigration, but (as obtuse as he often seems to be) he knows better than to make immigration policy the centerpiece of a column on the revival of McCain's candidacy.

Most categories of violence in Iraq are now down by more than 60 percent, and sectarian attacks in Baghdad have fallen by 90 percent. Sunni tribal leaders are conducting the first large-scale revolt of Arabs against al-Qaeda thuggery - which includes, we learned last week, strapping explosives to a mentally disabled woman and setting off a blast in a market.

McCain seems well suited to deal with this kind of evil - precisely because he would diagnose it as evil.

Whereas the other candidates would diagnose it as... oh, what's the word I'm struggling to find... evil?

In case it is necessary to restate my position, the military achievements in Iraq have been impressive. From the total domination of the country in the early days of the war, through the surge and its military goals of suppressing violence to make room for political progress. On the other hand, the Iraq war has been a political disaster, from the Bush Administration machinations that got us into the war, to the incompetent decisions made following the occupation (including extreme de-Baathification and the dissolution of the Iraq military, which laid the foundation for two of the most intractable problems, bringing Baathists into a unification government and a large, widespread insurgency.) Lest we forget, although the occupation was not the "cakewalk" we were promised, there was a two-year downward spiral following the invasion. Two years of squandered opportunity, due primarily to the Bush Administration's refusal to face reality and lust to unilaterally impose its own goals on the state of Iraq. Where was Gerson during that period abject incompetence? Oh, yeah....

In the general election, his ideological heresies will suddenly transform into strengths. Because of his immigration views, he is the only Republican candidate who can make a serious appeal to Hispanic voters. His positions on global warming and campaign finance reform will ease his outreach to independents.

If Gerson were paying attention to the voices of voters instead of the voices in his head, he would realize that McCain's present success arises from his "outreach to independents". The closer to the center you are, the more likely you are to support McCain. The hardcore Republicans, those who put immigration as an issue above the Iraq war? They're not likely to be thrilled with McCain's reach toward the center. Gerson might dismiss this with a, "Who else are they going to vote for?" That, however, is an attitude likely to lead to reduced voter turnout.

Gerson sees one, and only one, flaw in McCain. His attempt to reinvent himself as a supporter of Bush, leading to the infamous "hug" picture that is sure to feature prominently in Presidential campaign ads? Not a problem. His flip-flopping on the religious right, and attempt to mend fences with the likes of Pat Robertson? Not a problem. His legendary temper? Not a problem. His off-the-cuff comments, such as the idea of a 100+ year Iraq war? Gerson probably views them as an attribute.

No, to Gerson, McCain's one big problem is that he doesn't care about domestic issues.

McCain's foresight on Iraq has carried him far. But eventually he will need to engage Democrats on issues from health care to education to poverty. And being right on the war will not be enough.

Health care? Doesn't Gerson read his own paper? (Seriously, though, that was a weak analysis.) Can McCain argue persuasively on issues he doesn't care about? I don't recall that he has ever really tried, suggesting that he is either sticking to issues he cares about or is ultimately forgettable when he speaks about anything else.

Here's McCain filling up a couple of minutes with his views on education policy. Here he is promising to continue GW's economic policies.) When McCain is memorable, it's usually when he betrays his lack of understanding of the economy - that is, when he says things like "I wish interest rates were zero" and "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

And let's not forget, Gerson is assuming McCain is "right on the war". The majority of Americans want a strategy that gets us out of Iraq. McCain doesn't have one. The majority of Americans want a strategy that brings our troops home. McCain's willing to commit them to Iraq for 100 years or more. The military success of the surge doesn't overcome the reality that the public wants the war to end, nor does it substitute for political progress. As previously noted, by the President's own standards the surge is a total political failure.

For a better summary of the more probable dynamics being McCain's resurgence, see Daniel Larison's comments at Eunomia.

Winning By Expressing Admiration And Emphasizing Common Ground

It is interesting to see where the extreme right of the Republican party attack McCain for such "atrocities" as questioning tax cuts that are not accompanied by spending cuts, campaign finance reform (attacking [corporate] free speech), immigration reform ("amnesty")....

It seems like there is a substantial portion of the Republican electorate that can be deterred from voting for McCain (or at least stripped of its enthusiasm) if the Democratic candidate runs a positive campaign which expresses admiration for some of these political stances, and emphasizes common ground between McCain and the Democratic candidate's platform. That would certainly not done across-the-board, as there are also many differences to emphasize ("Unlike my opponent, I'm not willing to commit to 100 years of war and untold trillions of taxpayer dollars, particularly in the absence of compelling evidence that our strategic goals are being achieved"). But on the hot button issues of the hard right, there's a lot of "common ground" to work with.

What A Brilliant Ad Campaign

I just spotted a new McCain ad:

The ad cleverly evokes the spirit of Harry Truman:

McCain and Alito

Today, Robert Novak rambles about whether John McCain is a "conservative", based upon rumors that McCain would have picked John Roberts for the Supreme Court but not Samuel Alito.

That was the background for conservative John Fund's Wall Street Journal online column the day before Florida voted. Fund wrote that McCain "has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.' " In a conference call with bloggers that day, McCain said, "I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that." He was "astonished" by the Alito quote, he said, and he repeatedly says at town meetings, "We're going to have justices like Roberts and Alito."

Personally, I would not pick either of them.

That's not about ideology, as such. It's about personality. I am not particularly enamored with people, no matter how bright and accomplished, who appear to possess authoritarian personalities. Nor am I particularly enamored with people who seem to be locked into a particular ideology, where "All roads lead to Rome." It's a bit like seeing Scalia concoct a brand spanking new version of "sovereign immunity", which I'm sure he would insist is 100% consistent with the intentions of the founding fathers (even if he was the first to notice). I'm not thrilled with eagerness with which the Roberts Court approaches voting rights - not with an eye to protecting voters, but what seems to be an eye for preventing challenges to unconstitutional laws until after an election is over. Gerrymandering? Reproductive freedom? Habeas Corpus? What surprises do you expect?

When you take any particular question going before the court, nine times out of ten you can guess how the various justices are going to vote before you read the decision. If you are handed a decision and get the vote count, probably 19 times out of 20 you can accurately guess which Justices joined the majority opinion, and which dissented. And that's if you're not a Supreme Court scholar, but just a passive observer of the court. The factions of the political right that are infatuated with Roberts and Alito like to skewer the court's "swing voters" - those who don't consistently fall under their preferred ideology. It isn't that those factions know something about the law or Constitution - their only concern is the advancement of a specific political agenda.

Maybe I would feel differently if I were President, and had the opportunity to appoint a justice so rigid in his beliefs that I was confident that he would provide a consistent vote for my political agenda - continuing perhaps for decades after I left office. But I'm not the President, I get to be more idealistic, and I want justices who actually wrestle with the issues rather than consistently falling back on ideology. And I would just as soon avoid having any authoritarian personalities on the Court.

Turning A Corner....

Or perhaps going around the bend? The Corner brings us this fantabulous display of... should we call it "McCain Derangement Syndrome"?

In November, we'll be sending out our most liberal, least trustworthy candidate vs. to take on Hillary Clinton — perhaps not more liberal than Barack Obama, but certainly far less trustworthy.

This is Michael Graham's response to McCain's defeat of Romney?

... But First He Has To Win The Nomination

David Brooks appears to believe that John McCain is the best hope for the Republican Party in a presidential election. He's probably correct:

While various conservative poobahs threaten to move to Idaho if Huckabee or McCain gets the nomination, the silent majority of conservative voters seem to like these candidates. Huckabee has done very well among evangelical voters while loudly deviating from conservative economic orthodoxy. John McCain leads among Republicans nationally. He has a 71 percent favorable rating and a 23 percent unfavorable rating. He has a 63 percent favorability rating among Huckabee supporters, 66 percent favorability among Romney supporters and 81 percent favorability among supporters of Rudy Giuliani. These are much higher second choice ratings than any other candidate.

Except.... First he has to win the nomination, and as Brooks concedes there are many within the party establishment who not only vehemently oppose McCain, they are actively savaging him. If McCain wins the Republican nomination, he will have to overcome the consequences of that internecine warfare. Many of the people who are currently warring against McCain will not get behind him in the general election, and those who do risk looking like clowns (although in some contexts that's probably not much of a change). Some of those critics will also have to open their wallets to support his campaign.

At the same time, "moderate, centrist" McCain will have to overcome the infamous "hug" photograph, his flip-flopping on the religious right, and... his willingness to commit to a century or more of "more of the same" in Iraq. If, as Senator Clinton believes, a McCain candidacy will turn on issues of national security, I think he has the wrong message.

McCain also has a senior Senator's problem - an enormous voting record which makes it pretty easy to map out where he stands on the issues - and where his votes have changed, or where his current promises are inconsistent with his voting record. Also, although this isn't his fault, McCain is looking rather peaked.

It was (and is) a mistake for the Republican Party to underestimate McCain (and overestimate the likes of Giuliani, Romney and Thompson). I agree with Brooks' suggestion that it would be a huge mistake for the Democratic Party to underestimate McCain (or, for that matter, to underestimate any Republican nominee). But I think that when the Democrats finally get down to defining a platform - one that is appealing to the public while departing substantially from the Republican candidate's platform - it will be much easier to do so against McCain than against any other leading candidate, and that could be a real advantage going into the election. They can also stress commonality on some of the issues that drive the Republican establishment crazy. So yes, McCain has a shot at winning, but if Brooks is putting him forward as the strongest Republican candidate things still look very promising for the Democratic Party.

McCain On "The Surge"

Today John McCain was arguing that the Democratic Party should be happy with the position of General Petraeus that "the surge" is working and that there will (possibly) be a "reduction" in troop levels to pre-surge levels in about a year. It's not such a bad talking point, but beyond that isn't very coherent.

• A "surge" has to end, or it is an "escalation". It was thus a foregone conclusion that if we were going to keep calling this a "surge" it would have an ending point.

• If "the surge" ends with no political progress, there is no reason to believe that further troop withdrawals are possible or even advisable if you wish to even maintain the status quo.

• The military successes of "the surge" do not automatically translate into political success. If "the surge" brings about none of the political reforms and improvements promised at its inception, the surge can be an unqualified military success yet still be a political failure. (Surely McCain has heard reference to armed conflicts were "we won every battle, yet lost the war".)

If General Petraeus is comfortable predicting an end to "the surge" by next July, why isn't he comfortable describing a timetable for additional troop reductions after that date?

I would venture that it is because he continues to expect that number of troops to remain in the field for at least another five to ten years.

Whatever "points" the Democratic Party can claim for getting tentative dates for the end of the surge, maintaining pre-surge troop levels for the indefinite future does nothing to bring this conflict to an end. McCain knows that, and if he wishes to vindicate himself as a "straight shooter" he should admit as much. (But perhaps "McCain the straight shooter" was always more of a matter of perception than reality.)

McCain On The Benevolence of Generals

I will note up front that this post has nothing to do with any specific general, other than the one presented as a counter-example to McCain's argument.

John McCain, on the Diane Rehm show, made an argument which boils down to "Generals are looking out for the good of the nation", rejecting any argument that they are motivated by politics or would skew their results for political purposes. I suspect that McCain knows better, having seen through his military and political career numerous examples of military officers telling their superiors "what they want to hear", and knowing full well how political the position of a general can be - you aren't likely to become a general, and are even less likely to maintain your position or get further promotions, unless you are skilled at working with politicians.

If we accept McCain's argument that we should defer to generals because they are looking out for the good of the country, can he not think of any examples where the general's (assumed) belief of what was good for the country was at significant odds with the position of the nation's civilian leaders, other generals, or in the view of history? (Even one?)

Did McCain somehow overlook the manner in which Bush has treated generals whose positions happened to differ from his own? Is McCain truly arguing that as President he would defer to the presumed good faith positions of generals, even when those views are diametrically opposed? (As if that's even possible?) Or is he suggesting that if the President endorses the beliefs of a particular general, the public should defer to the "good faith" of that general, no matter what any other generals may be saying.